against the Episcopacy of a bishop infimi gradus over many Churches makes not against the right of an overseer of other bishops such as Titus must needs be if he were indeed bishop of Crete which contained a hundred Cities and where bishops or elders were ordained in every City If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture be for such an office I oppose it not Now a bishop of bishops may be taken in a twofold notion either for one of a higher order that is to say of an office specifically different from the subordinate bishops or for one of a higher degree only in the same order I suppose our Archbishops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a bishop of bishops but the latter only But the bishop of a Diocess is de facto that which the Archbishop of a Province doth not own namely a bishop of bishops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Diocess who have been already proved from Scripture to be bishops Hereupon the present inquiry is Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a bishop of bishops in either of the said notions And in this inquiry I shall consider what kind of Government the Apostles had over the Pastors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Episcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the seven Churches of Asia◠Apoc. 1. and 2. § 9. The BISHOPS Plen of being the Apostles Successors in their Governing-Power examined THO the Apostles in respect of that in them which was common to other officers call themselves Presbyters and Ministers but never bishops yet it is asserted by the asserters of Prelacy that bishops superior to Presbyters are the Apostles successors and thereupon have a governing-power over Presbyters Wherefore the Apostles governing-power and the said bishops right of succession thereunto is necessarily to be considered As touching this claimed succession in the governing power the defenders of prelacy say that Presbyters qua Presbyters succeed the Apostles in the office of governing But the Scripture doth not warrant this dividing of the office of teaching and governing And if the division cannot be proved in case there be a succession it must be into the whole and not into a part and so the Presbyters must succeed as well in ruling as in teaching Besides it hath been already proved that an authoritative Teacher of the Church is qua talis a Ruler The Apostles had no successors in their special office of Apostleship For not only the unction or qualification of an Apostle but also the intire Apostolick office as in its formal state or specifick difference was extraordinary and expired with their persons It was an office by immediate Vocation from Christ without the intervention of man by election or ordination for the authentick promulgation of the Christian Doctrine and the erecting of the Christian Church throughout the World which is built on the foundation of their Doctrine and for the governing of all churches wherever they came and it eminently contained all the power of ordinary bishops and pastors The continuation of teaching and governing in the Church doth no more prove that the office of teaching and governing in the Apostles was quoad formale an ordinary office than that the office of teaching and governing in Christ himself was so But their teaching and governing was by immediate call and authentick and uncontrolable and therefore extraordinary And I do not know that the bishops say they are Apostles tho they say they are the successors of the Apostles Moreover in proper speaking the ordinary bishops or elders cannot be reckoned the successors of the Apostles for they were not succedaneous to them but contemporary with them from the first planting of churches and did by divine right receive and exercise their governing-power And the bishops or elders of all succeeding ages are properly the successors of those first bishops or elders and can rightfully claim no more power than they had Nevertheless let the Apostles governing power be inquired into as also what interest the bishops of the Hierarchical state have therein And in this query it is to be considered That the Presbyters whom the Apostles ordained and governed were bishops both in name and thing and consequently their example of ordaining and ruling such Presbyters is not rightly alledged to prove that bishops as their successors have an appropriated power of ordaining and ruling Presbyters of an inferior order which in Scripture times were not in being Further it is to be considered Whether the said governing-power were only a supereminent authority which they had as Apostles and infallible and to whom the last appeals in matters of religion were to be made or an ordinary governing power over the Churches and the bishops or elders thereof I conceive it most rational to take it in the former sense For we find that the ordinary stated government of particular Churches was in the particular Bishops or Elders and we find not that any of the Apostles did take away the same from them or that it was superceded by their presence or that they reserved to themselves a negative voice in the government of the Churches Now if their governing power were only the said supereminent Apostolick authority they had no successors therein and tho teaching and ruling be of standing necessity and consequently of perpetual duration in the Church yet there is no standing necessity of that teaching and ruling as taken formally in that extraordinary state and manner as before expressed But if they exercised an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and bishops to be continued by succession such kind of Bishops over whom that power was exercised cannot claim a right of succession into the same but they must be officers of an higher orb Consequently if the Hierarchical Bishops claim the right of succession to the Apostles in their governing-power they must needs be of a higher orb than the first Bishops of particular Churches over whom that power was exercised And if this Hypothesis of the Apostles having an ordinary governing-power over the Churches and Bishops do sufficiently prove the right of the succession of Bishops of a higher orb in the same power I shall not oppose it But only I take notice that these higher Bishops are not of the same kind with those first bishops that were under that governing power and of which we read in Scripture That the Apostles should be Diocesan Bishops was not consistent with their Apostolick office being a general charge extending to the Church universal That any Apostle did appropriate a Diocess to himself and challenge the sole Episcopal authority therein cannot be proved The several Apostles for the better carrying on of the work of their office did make choice of several regions more especially to exercise their function in There was an agreement that Peter should go to the Circumcision and Paul to the Uncircumcision But as
death of Mark and in other places by that example And it plainly shews as the Apostle Paul doth That the Churches were governed by the Common Council of Presbyters who were also Bishops The Testimony of Irenaeus It is clear that this Father makes the presbyters to be the same with bishops and the successors of the Apostles and with him the succession of bishops is all one with the succession of presbyters Lib. 4. c. 43. We must obey those presbyters which are in the Church who together with the succession of Episcopacy have received the gift of truth Id. l. 3. c. 2. Unto that tradition which is in the church by the succession of presbyters we challenge them that say they are wiser not only than the presbyters but the Apostles Id. l. 3. c. 3. declaring the tradition of the greatest and ancientest church and known to all even the church of Rome founded by Peter and Paul at Rome that which it hath from the Apostles and the Faith declared to men and coming to us by the succession of bishops c. Id. lib. 4. c. 4. We must forsake unjust Presbyters serving their own lusts and adhere to those who with the order of presbytery keep the doctrine of the Apostles found and their conversation without offence unto the information and correction of the rest The church nourisheth such presbyters whereof the Prophet speaks I will give thee princes in peace and thy bishops in righteousness Id. lib. 4. c. 63. The true knowledg of the doctrine of the Apostles and the ancient state in the whole world according to the succession of bishops to which they gave the church which is in every place which is come even to us From these citations it is evident that this Father doth express one and the same order of Episcopacy in all presbyters If any do use this evasion that he calls all those that were true bishops by the name of presbyters let them shew where he mentions presbyters of another order or makes two different orders of Episcopacy and Presbyterate Here I will take notice of the words of Irenaus concerning those Elders of the church mentioned Acts 20. lib. 3. c. 14. viz. In Miletum the bishops and presbyters which were from Ephesus and other the next Cities being convocated Tho it seems most reasonable by the Elders of the church there sent for by Paul to understand the elders of that particular church of Ephesus to which the Apostle then sent and indeed if they had been from other Cities also it would have said according to the Scripture way of expression the elders of the churches yet admitting what this Father saith hereof observe we that he speaks of bishops and presbyters as congregated in the meeting and he might mention two names of the same office And the Apostle speaks to all those presbyters that there convened as those whom the Holy Ghost had made bishops of the flock And suppose they were the bishops of Asia as some would have it yet it cannot be proved that they were any other than bishops of single Congregations or that they were such bishops as had subject presbyters of a lower order under them The Testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus He thus writes Stromat lib. 6. p. 667. He is really a presbyter of the church and a true Deacon of the will of God if he teach the things of the Lord not as ordained by men nor esteemed just because he is a presbyter but taken into the presbytery because he is just Here in the Church are progressions of bishops presbyters deacons imitations as I think of the Angelical glory and of the heavenly dispensation which the Scripture speaks they expect who treading in the footsteps of the Apostles have lived in the perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel These the Apostle writes being taken up into the clouds shall first be made deacons and then shall be taken into the presbytery according to the progress of glory Here this Father first mentions only two orders presbyters and deacons afterwards a progression of bishops presbyters and deacons as imitations of the heavenly dispensation but in the close applying the similitude to blessed men taken into heaven he makes the progress to be only in being first as deacons then as presbyters mentioning no higher order Hence I conceive may be inferred that he speaks of presbyters and deacons as of two different orders and of bishops but as a higher degree in the order of presbyters This also may be further confirmed Stromat lib. 7. p. 700. where distinguishing of a twofold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or employment in secular affairs viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he saith that presbyters hold that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which makes men better and the deacons that which consists in service His meaning is that as in the Civil State there are two orders the one governing and the other ministring so there are likewise in the Church the Presbyters holding the one and the deacons the other These passages of this Author I thought fit to mention and have not found in him any more relating to the distinct ministers of the church The Testimony of Jerome This Father also speaks of presbyters as the same with bishops and successors of the Apostles On the Epistle to Titus c. 1. he saith As presbyters know that they are by the custom of the church subject to him that is set over them so let the bishops know that they are greater than presbyters rather by custom than by the verity of the Lords appointment He also testifies that they did and ought to rule the church in common and that imparity came in by little and little In his Epistle to Evagrius he shews that the presbyters of Alexandria from Mark till Heraclas and Dionysius had always one chosen out of them and placed in a higher degree and named bishop as if an Army made an Emperor and Deacons chose one whom they knew industrious and called him Arch-deacon Here he mentions no other making of bishops than by presbyters And that the presbyters made the bishop is an argument brought by him to prove the identity at first and afterwards the nearness of their power And he ascribes to presbyters the making of their bishop and placing him in a higher degree and naming him bishop And he distinguisheth the ancient way of making bishops by presbyters from that way of making them which followed the times of Heraclas and Dionysius which was by Episcopal ordination This evidence is confirmed by the testimony of Eutichius Patriarch of Alexandria who out of the Records and Traditions of that Church in his Arabick Originals saith according to Seldens Translation in his Commentary p. 29 30. That the presbyters laid hands on him whom they elected till the time of Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria for he forbad the presbyters any longer to create the Patriarch and decreed that the Patriarch being deceased bishops should
of his name in our abject and forlorn state and posture And the Scripture expresly takes notice of a kind of Will-Worship in a certain voluntary abasement and neglect of the body Col. 2.23 § 14. The nature of Monastick Vows of Obedience Poverty and Chastity considered THat the formale of these Vows as of all others is Divine Worship is not doubted the inquiry therefore is of the subject matter thereof By the matter of these Vows the asserters thereof intend a special religious state over and above the general religious state which is Christianity it self which special state contains an obligation to certain offices and works to be done intended for the direct and immediate honouring and serving of God and that in a more sublime and perfect way than Christianity in general and so they are made direct matter of devotion or Worship But the matter of those Vows may be so intended and managed as to be religious only reductively as being for the advancement of Religion namely for vacancy to holy exercises for more Freedom in the Christian warfare upon which account Caelibate or single life was commended by St. Paul not that he commended the Vow thereof but a constant purpose thereof for those ends in case of the gift or power to continue therein Now whether they be fit matter of Vows in this later sense is afterwards to be considered The like may be said of abstinence as of Caelibate § 15. Of Decency and Order adjuncts of Divine Worship THE Apostles rule Let all things be done decently and in order is of the law of nature and would have obliged the Churches of Christ tho it had not been written in the Holy Scripture Decency as such is no part of Worship but an adjunct it is the convenient setting it off or a mode thereof agreeable to its dignity And it is not proper to it alone but common to all Civil matters and Humane actions of a grave nature viz. that it be performed in a meet habit and posture of Body and Furniture and other like significations of due respect to a holy action Order likewise is an adjunct of Worship and is not to be extended to the making of new Worship for that it is no other than the due disposing of what is already made and the convenient setting and ranking of the several parts thereof for Method Measure Time Place and other circumstances And it belongs to Divine Worship not on a peculiar but common reason as to all humane actions wherein order is both beautiful and advantageous and disorder is deformed and prejudicial The Apostles said Rule intends that necessary Decency and Order the want whereof is undecency and disorder but not Gaudy dresses Theatrical ornaments Pompous formalities Imagery and Various flourishes affected by the sensual fancy Such Decency is injoyned as is suitable to things of a holy and reverend Nature We may know what is injoyned in a Law by what is therein forbidden Now in this Law nothing is forbidden but undecency and disorder and therefore nothing is injoyned but the necessary Decency and Order opposite thereunto And in plain reason whatsoever is not undecent is decent and whatsoever is not disorderly is orderly I mean in a capable subject of these adjuncts Most Matters of Decency and Order are simply necessary only in genere but not in specie any further but that some species or other under the genus is to be made use of according to prudence Some particular species of Decency are in themselves necessary when they are possible and they are those whose opposites are undecent from the nature of the things Some are necessary from extrinsecal circumstances as from custome of the Time and Place the Quality and Condition of persons c. The former kind may be called Natural the later Civil or Customary And the later sort are necessary even by the Law of Nature yet not immediately but mediately such circumstances being supposed But this sort admits of much variety and alteration Less decent hath the nature of undecent when it it chosen in opposition to more decent as less good hath the nature of evil when it is chosen in opposition to greater good But here it is not fit nor safe to contend about magis and minus nor to strain to the uttermost pitch in things that are matter of Controrvesie or Scruple or Jealousie but it is best to take up with that which is most passable among all provided there be no simple undecency For then in that case no necessary Decency is neglected § 16. Of Time and Place considered as Adjuncts or as matter of Worship TIME and Place in general are necessary Adjuncts or Circumstances of Divine Worship For no action Natural or Moral can be performed without them And they are meer Adjuncts when they attend Divine Worship in a way and reason common to it with other humane Actions and are appointed and used about it according to convenience for the due performance of it And then they are only for the Worship performed therein but the Worship is not from them But Time and Place in Gods Worship sometimes have a higher state and become the matter thereof as the old Sabbath and the Lords day and the Tabernacle and Temple under the Mosaical dispensation For as God by his Institution did make those Times and Places not occasionally but statedly holy and a means of sanctifying his people so his people in their submission to his appointment and their very Dedication and Observation or Sanctifying of those Times and Places did perform special Acts of Worship being an Oblation to God and an immediate giving of honour to him And those Times and Places were not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but the duties were partly sanctified and made acceptable by those Times and Places Howbeit those sacred Times and Places that have been advanced to be matter of Worship are also in that state of advancement Adjuncts to that Worship to which they appertain and are appropriated For there is that inferiority and superiority in several parts of Worship that some may be rightly accounted adjuncts to others As God by his Institution can make Times and Places that of themselves are but meer Adjuncts to be matter of his Worship and hath done it in the forementioned instances so men also may by their Institutions make Times and Places statedly or permanently Holy and matter of Worship and an Oblation to God How lawfully they may do so is afterwards to be considered but however the dedicating and observing thereof hath the Nature of Worship in it For the efficient cause Whether it be God or Man is extrinsecal to the formal nature of Worship which lies in the formal Reason and direct and proper end and use of the action by whomsoever instituted Here it may be considered Whether every Adjucnt of Worship instituted of God doth by that Institution become a matter or part of Worship which otherwise it
of the Cross in Baptism are these 1. That it is not a meer circumstance but an Ordinance of Worship as important as an external rite can be 2. That being a solemn and stated Symbolical sign of a Divine Mystery and devised of men it is of that classis or rank of things which are not necessary in genere and so not allowed to be determined and imposed by men as things necessary in genere are allowed 3. That either the whole nature of a Sacrament or at least a part thereof is in it That it is a Sacrament is thus proved It is an outward and visible sign of inward and spiritual Grace The outward sign is the representation of the Cross the instrument of Christs sufferings and the inward spiritual Grace is fortitude in the Christian warfare according to the words of the Liturgy Here is a signification of Grace to be given us of God and of our duty according to that Grace Likewise this sign hath assigned unto it the moral efficacy of a Sacrament for working Grace by teaching and exciting us to the spiritual warfare and minding us of Christ crucified Also it signifies and seals our Relation to Christ or the Grace of being a Christian And the Liturgy so speaks We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christs Flock and sign him c. in token c. The pretence that no rite can be a Sacrament but what God hath instituted is answered before Sect. 4. And tho the imposers thereof say it is not a Sacrament yet if they so declare its meaning as to be of the formal nature and reason of a Sacrament they make it to be one indeed tho in word they deny it If it were granted that it hath not the compleat or intire nature of a Sacrament yet there is one essential part of a Sâ—crament most apparently in it that is to be an ingaging sign on our part in the Covenant For we use it as a token of ingaging our selves to Christ crucified as our Captain and Saviour by his Cross and to perform the duties of his Soldiers and Servants to our lives ends And as Baptism dedicates to Christ so doth the sign of the Cross according to the express words of the Canon viz. It is an honourable badg whereby the party Baptized is dedicated to the Service of him that dyed on the Cross So it hath that in it which is essential to a Sacrament and part of the nature thereof at least Besides it seems to be an Ordinance of that nature and kind which Christ our Lawgiver hath reserved to himself from the reason in Sections 3 4 5. § 12. Of Holy-days THAT some time of every day is to be spent in Religious exercises and that whole days of Humiliation and Thanksgiving are to be kept upon special occasions and that there may be an Anniversary commemoration of great Mercies or Judgments is little doubted I see no reason why it is not lawful for a Nation or People to institute an Anniversary Commemoration of some eminent person sent of God as a great light among them as the first propagator of the Gospel or great Restorer of true Religion among them as of Luther among the Germans and Calvin among the French Protestants For scarce a greater blessing doth arise to a Nation Mr. R B. saith That an Apostolical Ministry being so eminent a mercy he can see no reason why the Churches of all succeeding Ages may not keep an Anniversary day for Peter or Paul c. but he saith also that whether it be lawful to separate an Anniversary for the commemoration of Christs Nativity Circumcision and such like things c. which were equally existent in the Apostles days and the reasons for observing them then equal with the following times is hard for him to determine being not able to prove it lawful and yet not seeing a plain prohibition of it Yet he gives these reasons of doubting their lawfulness First the occasions of these days were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days observed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles in the Scripture as he did other like things 2. If it were necessary it would be equally necessary in all Ages and parts of the Catholick church and therefore must be the matter of an universal Law and God hath made no such Law in Scripture and therefore to say it is necessary is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as the Catholick Rule of Faith and Universal Divine obedience 3. God himself hath appointed a day for the same purposes as these are pretended for the Resurrection implies all the rest of the Works of the Redeemer 4. The Fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man is not to presume to make the like He accounts it plainly unlawful for any Earthly Power to appoint a Weekly day in commemoration of any part of our Redemption and so make another stated Weekly Holy-day because it is the doing of the same thing for one day which God hath done by another and so seems an usurpation of power not given and an accusation of Christ and the Holy Ghost as if he had not done his Work sufficiently I think it also an usurpation of Power not given for any Human Authority to make any day or time permanently and unmovably holy as a perpetual oblation to God and not only sanctified by the duties therein performed but also sanctifying the duties and making them the more acceptable But as to the observation much more to the imposing of the observation of Holy-days of human institution regard is to be had not only to what is lawful but also to what is expedient And it is as easie to offend by excess as by defect in the instituting of set-times and days appropriated to Divine Worship § 13. Of a LITVRGY ANY particular form whether stinted or free is not of the essence of prayer but only its accidental shape or mode and pertains to it not as to a holy action but as to an action in general And for that no action can be performed but in some particular mode or other this holy action cannot otherwise be performed Now neither Scripture nor the nature of the thing hath made either a stated and stinted or a free and extemporal form in it self necessary and therefore either the one or the other may be used as expedience requires according to due choice and judgment As on the one hand they are too weak and ill advised that reject all set-forms so they on the other hand are too opinionative that reject all immediately conceived yea or preconceived forms that are not prescribed And both of them shew that they are too much addicted to their Parties § 14. Of Religious Austerities as acts or matter of Divine Worship THere are Austerities inconvenient in their kind such as the self cutting and lancing of Baals Priests and
of Christs Ministers have the same force towards his subjects That the power of a Pastor in binding and loosing as to the communion and external priviledges of the Church is more than declarative of the mind of Christ therein I yet discern not For tho the sentence of an erring judg in a Civil judicatory is valid till it be reversed yet the erring keys have no effect and the Church and the Members thereof are not bound by the unjust sentence of a Pastor to reject a godly person that hath not given just scandal or to carry themselves towards him as towards one unfit for Christian Communion but they are still to receive him as a brother Indeed the injured person may be bound to forbear the use of his right in some parts thereof as coming to the Church-Assembly in case a schism or disturbance would follow But this obligation doth not arise from any validity that is in the unjust sentence but from the duty of preserving peace and order The distinction of the power of Order and the power of jurisdiction is vain For the spiritual Pastor or Elder hath no other power than the power of the Keys and the full power of the Keys intrinsecally belongs to the order or office of a Pastor or Elder But if any pretend that the full power of the Keys doth not intrinsecally belong to the office of a Pastor or Elder but a part only or that there be two kinds of power of the Keys the one whereof belongs only to one superior kinâ— of spiritual officers and the other is common to all â—piritual â—astors let him prove such distinction and distribution from the Word of God § 5. Of the Delegation of Spiritual Power THE delegation of power is a derivation thereof from its ordinary subject to another who is not the ordinary subject thereof and who hath right to exercise it merely as authorized by the ordinary subject thereof as when a Bishop delegates his episcopal power to him who is no Bishop and who exercises the same merely by vertue of his delegation The office of a Bishop Pastor or Elder is a trust and that of the greatest consequence in the world and a trust may not be delegated by the receiver to another person without the express consent of the giver No subordinate officer can make a legal deputy unless he be authorized thereunto by law or in his commission or Charter from the supream power And Christ hath not exprest his consent to the transferring of this trust nor given authority to his Ministers to make such Delegation That Princes and Soveraign Powers bâ—ing Gods Trustees do transfer the work of their trust to Delegates and subordinate officers is no ground for Christs Ministers to do the like For first Christs Ministers are only authorized Ambassadors Heralds and not Spiritual Soveraigns under him as the supream Magistrates are Civil Soveraigns under God 2. It is in the nature of civil soveraignty to make delegates and subordinate officers of civil power and the due Government of the Civil State makes it necessary but there is no such thing in the nature of the pastoral office and no necessity for it in Ecclesiastical Government 3. The specification of magistracy or civil power is left to men but the spiritual power is specified by Christ and by him appropriated to officers of his own institution 4. Christ to provide for his flock hath taken another course than to authorize Bishops and Pastors to do their work by Delegates namely to command the ordaining of more Bishops or Elders as need requires The delegation of Episcopal Power is a repugnancy in it self For it is the power of the keys or of stewarship in Christs house of binding and loosing of remitting and retaining sins in Christs name by special authority from him And can any that is not Christs officer so authorized exert such power Besides if one part of the bishops proper work viz. The exercise of Ecclesiastical Government may be delegated to one that is no bishop why may not any other part of his work be so delegated as the ordaining of ministers And if it be replied ad ordinem pertinet ordinare by as good reason it may be said that it as incommunicably belongs to the order or office of Christs institution to exercise Christs Discipline as to ordain Ministers Indeed a Vicar being of the same sacred office or order may so exert the said power in the place of another as that his act is valid But it may well be questioned whether any bishop may make one or more vicarious bishops to execute his charge for every bishop hath received a trust from Christ to be fulfilled in his own person Col. 1.7 And I do not find that Christ hath granted a faculty to any bishop to fulfil his Ministry by a Vicar of his own order But I do not question but a bishop may have an assistant or assistants of his own order either occasionally in case of present disability or justifiable avocation or statedly when the flock that is under his personal oversight requires more work than one man can do And then the said assistants are not his Vicars but collegues performing each of them their own part in the work and service of their Lord Christ § 6. The identity of a Bishop and Presbyter IT is granted by the assertors of prelacy that the names Bishop and Presbyter are used promiscuously Now they that assert two distinct offices under promiscuous names had need bring clear proof for the distinction of those offices Howbeit I do not merely insist on the names as indifferently used but wheresoever the sacred office of Presbyterate is set forth in Scripture it is set forth as the office of a spiritual Pastor or Bishop which is to feed the Flock of God by teaching and ruling it And such a Presbyter as is a sacred officer of the Christian Church but not a Bishop or Pastor is not to be found in Scripture Tit. 1.5 7. shews not only an identity of name but of office To give order for the admission of none to the office of an Elder but one so qualified because a Bishop must be so qualified is not rational if the bishop be of a distinct office from the Presbyter and superior to him Act. 20 28 The Elders are called Bishops and have the whole Episcopal Power to feed the flock by government as well as by doctrine 1 Pet. 5.12 The elders are exhorted to feed the Flock of God which is among them and to take the oversight thereof and under the force of these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the bishops claim their whole power of government 1 Tim. 3. The Apostle immediately passeth from the Bishop to the Deacon and takes no notice of such an officer as a Presbyter below a Bishop and above a Deacon And neither this nor any other Scripture doth afford us the least notice of any qualification or ordination or any sacred
are not immediately inspired of God have sufficiently certain evidence in reason to the discerning and chusing of infallible guides that are immediately inspired § 15. Whether Infallibility admit of degrees and in what respect EVery truth is equally impossible to be false for all things that imply a contradiction are equally because utterly impossible All are alike infallible in that wherein they are infallible and therein they cannot be more infallible because therein it is utterly impossible that they should be deceived and so it cannot be more impossible than it is already Nevertheless there are different degrees of evidence for being infallible in such or such a matter Likewise there are different degrees of clear apprehension of being infallible and so the sure knowledg of being infallible admits of degrees That knowledg that is sufficiently certain may be advanced to be abundantly certain and that which is abundant may be advanced to yet more abundant Whereupon I conclude that though infallibility in its formal reason admits of no degrees yet there are different degrees of the evidence and the clear apprehension thereof Moreover infallibility is in a more noble and perfect state in one subject than in another And so the infallibility of a superior intellect as that of Angels is in a more perfect and excellent than the hypothetical and the unlimited than the limited In the same subject infallibility may be in a more perfect state at one time than another according to the rising or falling of the evidence thereof § 16. Of the Infallibility of Sense THAT which is agreeable to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be false and that which is repugnant to sence rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true For that the one should be false and that the other should be true implies a contradiction supposing the sensitive faculty to be true And if the sensitive faculties be not true it infers that impious and absurd opinion that God cannot or will not govern the material world but by falshood The Popish opinion of Transubstantiation is no deception of the sense but of the understanding for they that have persuaded themselves to believe it do not say they see or tast or feel Christs body and blood but acknowledg what they see feel and tast to be the accidents of the bread and wine which they say remains after Transubstantion Wherefore the imposing is not upon the senses but upon the understanding which ought to judg by sense of matters that are the proper objects of sense § 17. Of Infallibility of Reason IF Sense may be the subject of Infallibility why may not the Understanding be so which is a more excellent Faculty in the kind of perception or knowledg If the Understanding be the subject of Certainty why not also of infallibility in that limited sense as hath been before explained The proper object of Certainty is not that which may or may not be but that which must be or which is known to be such An indubitable Certainty is acknowledged and from an indubitable Certainty properly so called I think a good inference is made unto an infallible Certainty To be indubitable in a matter is to be sure that I am not therein deceived And I cannot rationally be sure that I am not deceived unless I am sure that it cannot be that the thing be otherwise than I apprehend And if I am sure that it cannot be otherwise than I apprehend I am as to that particular infallible Because men in their most confident persuasions are commonly deceived by prejudice from passion interest education and the like it follows not that none can be secure from deception that is to know that it cannot be that they should be deceived in such or such a matter Certainly an impartial and unbiassed judgment may be found § 18. Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusisions as well as Mathematical admit of demonstrative Evidence UPON the foregoing enquiries I judg it very disadvantageous to the cause of Religion to speak as some do of a lower evidence for it than demonstration and such as the matter is capable of whereas I suppose there is not surer and clearer Evidence for any thing than for true Religion Not only Mathematical but Logical Physical Moral and Theological Conclusions admit of demonstrative evidence Whereas some say the existence of God is not Mathematically demonstrable because only Mathematical matter admits such kind of evidence if it be meant of that special evidence that is in the Mathematicks it is nothing to the purpose but if it be meant of evidence in general as demonstrative as Mathematical evidence it is false for this Truth admits the clearest and strictest demonstration This Proposition That God is is demonstrative in the strictest sense by a demonstration a posteriori viz of the necessary cause from the effect it being evident that the existence of God is absolutely necessary to the existence of the World for that we cannot attribute the being of the Phanomena or visible things in the world to any other cause than such a Being as we conceive God to be but we must offer violence to our own faculties This Proposition That every word of God shall be fulfilled according to the true and full intent of it is demonstrative in the strictest sense a priori from the veracity of God it being as evident that God is true as that he is As the Existence so the Attributes of God have demonstrative Evidence unless you had rather call them indemonstrable principles as having the greatest self-evidence From the Essence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him Moral and Theological Truths of demonstrative evidence are inferred as touching Gods moral law the good of conformity and the evil of inconformity thereunto and a just retribution to men according to that difference § 19. Of the infallible knowledg of the truth of the Christian Religion and Divine Authority of the Scripture UPON the grounds here laid as the Existence and Attributes of God and mans dependance on him and relation to him and his obligations thence arising may be demonstrated so also that the Christian Religion and the Holy Scriptures are of God as the Author and that the contrary would involve a contradiction And I take this to have been demonstrated by learned men and need not here be largely insisted on Only I shall set down a little of that much that hath been written by Mr. Baxter We may infallibly know the Christian Doctrine to be of God by his unimitable image or impression which is upon it supposing the truth of the historical part Likewise the truth of the historical part namely that this doctrine was delivered by Christ and his Apostles and that those things were done by him and them which the Scriptures mention we may know infallibly The Apostles and other first witnesses knew it infallibly themselves by their present sense and reason with the concomitance of
supernatural help in remembring and attesting it The first Churches received the Testimony from the first witnesses upon naturally certain and infallible evidence it being impossible that those witnesses could by combination deceive the world in such matters of fact in the very age and place when and where the things are pretended to be done and said And these Churches had the concomitance of supernatural attestation in themselves by the supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost and by miracles wrought by them The Christians or Churches of the next age received the testimony from those of the first with a greater evidence of natural infallible Certainty for that the Doctrine was delivered to them in the records of sacred Scripture and both the miracles and reporters were more numerous and they were dispersed over much of the world and with these also was the supernatural evidence of miracles We of the present age receive it insallibly from the Churches of all precedent ages successively to this day by the same way with greater advantages in some respects and with lesser in others not upon the Churches bare authority but the natural Cerainty of the infallible tradition of the Holy Scriptures or records of this religion and of the perpetual exercise thereof according to those records in all essential points wherein it was naturally impossible for the precedent ages to impose falshoods upon the subsequent And this rational evidence of the Churches tradition was in conjunction with the histories of heathens and the concessions of the Churches enemies infidels and hereticks all which did acknowledg the verity of the matters of fact There is natural evidence of the impossibility that all the witnesses and reporters being so many of such condition and in such circumstances should agree to deceive and never be detected for there is no possible sufficient cause that so many thousand believers and reporters in so many several countries throughout the world should be deceived or be herein mad or sensless and that those many thousands should be able in these matters unanimously to agree to deceive more than themselves into a belief of the same untruth in the very time and place where the things were said to be done And no sufficient cause can be given but that some among so many malicious enemies should have detected the deceit especially considering the numbers of Apostates and the contentions of Heriticks Besides all this there is a succession of the same spirit of Wisdom and Goodness which was in the Apostles and their hearers continued to this day and is wrought by their Doctrine § 20. Of the infallible Knowledg of the Sense of Scripture AS we may be infallibly certain of the Divine Authority of the Holy Scripture so likewise of the sence of the Scripture at least in points fundamental or essential to the Christian Religion and that without an infallible Teacher We may certainly know that an interpretation of Scripture repugnant to the common reason of mankind and to sense rightly circumstantiated is impossible to be true if we can certainly know any thing is impossible to be true and consequently we may infallibly know it The sence of Scripture in many things and those most material to Christian faith and life is so evident from the plain open and ample expression thereof that he that runs may read it if his understanding be notoriously prejudiced And if we cannot know the said sense to be necessarily true we can know nothing to be so and so we are at uncertainty for every thing It will surely be granted by all that we may as certainly know the sense of Scripture in things plainy and amply expressed as the sense of any other writings as for instance of the Writings of Euclide in the definitions and axioms in which men are universally agreed If any say the words in which the said definitions and axiomes are expressed may possibly bear another sense it is answered That they may absolutely considered because words which have their sense ad placitum and from common use being absolutely considered may have a divers sense from what they have by common use but those words being respectively considered as setled by use cannot possibly bear another sense unless we imagine the greatest absurdity imaginable in the Writer Besides they that pretend the possibility of another sense I suppose do mean sense and not nonsense And how a divers sense of all those words in Euclide that is not pure nonsense should arise out of the same words and so conjoined is by me incomprehensible But if the possibility of the thing be comprehensible or so great an absurdity be imaginable in a Writer led only by a humane spirit it is not imaginable in Writers divinely inspired That the Holy Ghost should write unintelligibly and wholly diversly from the common use of words in things absolutely necessary to salvation is impossible If an infallible Teacher be necessary to give the sense of Scripture in all things and no other sense than what is so given can be safely rested in then either the right sense of that infallible Teachers words if he be at a distance cannot be known but by some other present infallible Teacher or else that pretended infallible Teacher is more able or more willing to ascertain us of his meaning than the Holy Spirit of God in Scripture To speak of seeking the meaning of Scripture from the sense that the Catholick Church hath thereof is but vain talk For first the Catholick church never yet hath and never is like to come together till the day of judgment to declare their sense of the things in question nor have they written it in any book or number of books 2. Never did any true Representative of the Catholick Church or any thing like it as yet come together or any way declare what is their sense of the Scripture and the things in question nor is ever like to do 3. Tho it be granted that the Catholick Church cannot err in the essentials of Christian Religion as indeed no true member thereof can for it would involve a contradiction yet there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that a great if not the greater part of the Catholick Church may err in the integrals much more in the accidentals of Religion yea there is no assurance from Scripture or Reason but that the whole Catholick Church may err at least per vices in the several parts thereof some in one thing some in another And all this is testified by experience in the great diversities of opinions about these things in the several parts of the Catholick Church yea and by the difference of judgment and practise of the larger parts thereof even from those among us who hold this principle of the necessity of standing to their judgment Wherefore shall we think that God puts men upon such dissiculties yea impossibilities of finding out the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures at least in the main points of
Calendar yet in other chapters appointed to be read this person who speaks that which was untrue is set forth for a holy Angel And c. 7.3 both the Angel and Tobias are reported to say to Raguel that which was false on the Angels part viz. that they were of the sons of Naphtalim who were captives in Niniveh Tho we read in Scripture that Angels were sometimes taken to be men and so called by them that took them to be such yet we do not read therein that any Holy Angels affirmed that they were men and such particular men by name Tob. 12.15 The Angel is reported to say I am Raphael one of the seven holy Angels which present the prayers of the Saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy one The presenting of the prayers of the Saints before God looks like a mediatory act And suppose it here signifies but an act of ministry not of mediation yet I question whether it be right to consent to the use of such a passage as seems to imply the mediation or intercession of Angels for us and which may give an occasion to believe it and be made use of to prove that opinion The story of Bell and the Dragon is thought to be fabulous and there may be some regret in consenting to its being appointed to be read at a time when it being omitted the first Chapter of Isaiah would come in course to be read Moreover the reading of the Apocrypha hath been excepted against as it excludeth much of the Canonical Scriptures and taketh in such Books in their stead as are commonly reputed fabulous yet read for real History Of the Tables and Rules for Holy dayes and times IN this Book is contained the appointment of divers Festivals and other solemn times Now tho I scruple not to join in the publick Worship of God performed in those days yet I hesitate about the expresâ— declaring of assent and consent to the use of Tables and Rules directing to the solemnizing thereof It is to me doubtful whether any humane power may lawfully institute such times and days as some of these are I confess there be arguments for the lawfulness of such institution which I cannot well answer and there be other arguments against it which also I cannot well answer and this later sort I crave leave to propound in this place The occasions of these days and times were existent in the Apostles times and if God would have had these days appointed he could as easily and fitly have done it by his Apostles and have left it recorded in Scripture as he did other like things If the institution of these days and times were necessary it is equally necessary in all ages and parts of the Catholick Church and is the matter of an universal Law and so belongs to the Universal Lawgiver If the Universal Lawgiver hath reserved any thing to his own power it can be no less than the making of such Laws and Ordinances as are universally and perpetually necessary To affirm such institution to be universally necessary when God hath made no Law concerning it in Scripture is to overthrow the sufficiency of Scripture as a Catholick Rule of divine faith and worship For men to institute Ordinances of Worship supposed to be universally and perpetually necessary to the Church supposeth a defect in the divine universal and perpetual Ordinances to be made up by adding other Ordinances by way of supplement The fourth Commandment being one of the Decalogue seems to be of so high a nature that man may not presume to make the like The Table of all the Feasts to be observed begins All Sundays in the year so it calls the Lords day which it seems to put upon the same level with feasts of humane institution And there seems as great a sacredness if not greater conferred upon some of the high festivals as upon the Lords day which is of divine appointment The Lords day doth sufficiently answer the ends for which those festivals that relate to our Saviour are appointed for that being in memory of his Resurrection implies a memorial of all things done for mans redemption If such Institutions as these be not prohibited Deut. 4 2. Deut. 12.32 I enquire of what sort is the prohibited addition there spoken of The prohibition seems to me to be not meerly of adding to the Rule to wit the written law but of doing more than that Rule required as the precept is not of preserving the Rule but observing what is commanded in it I do not question the lawfulness of such humane institutions in divine Worship as are in meer subordination to divine institution and serve for the more convenient modifying and ordering thereof and which indeed are not properly additions thereunto because they are not of the same nature and use but are meerly accidentals of worship But I doubt of such humane Ordinances of divine worship as are coordinate with the divine Ordinances and express the same nature reason end and use with them and are additions properly so called The festival days appointed by the Church of England are in the Table of feasts set in coordination with the Lords day and they are not meerly the accidentals but very important integral parts of divine service in this Church In reason it must needs be that God hath sufficiently provided for his honour in the worship which he hath instituted as much as belongs to the reason and end of those things which he hath instituted Thereupon I enquire Whether it be not a presuming of our own against the divine wisdom to add to the divine Ordinances by way of supplement humane ordinances of the same reason and intent with the divine There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing some certain times besides the Lords day either fixed or variable to be spent in publick worship wherein God is to be glorified for Jesus Christ and the work of redemption wrought by him There is no question of the lawfulness of appointing days of humiliation and thanksgiving either for once or anniversarily upon special occasions and that besides the special occasions of those days things of universal and perpetual concernment ought to be minded in the religious exercises then performed In these cases the appointed days and times are only adjuncts of worship which as all other things must be performed in some certain time and they are for the worship but the worship is not for them and they are not intrinsecally holy but only by extrinsick denomination from the holy worship then solemnizâ—d But these concessions do not infer as I suppose the warrantableness of days appropriated to the same use and ends for which the Lords day is designed of God and made intrinsecally and permanently holy and sanctifying the worship as well as sanctified by it so that it were profaneness to alienate them to other uses Now as I assuredly believe that the Lords day is intrinsecally and
the close So that in all things as aforesaid the Vnity in Trinity and the Trinity in Vnity is to be worshipped He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity What less than the whole doctrine aforegoing can the said words in all things as aforesaid refer to For ought doth appear no one part of the doctrine or explication is made more necessary to be believed than another Besides in the Nicene Creed in the doctrine of the Person of Christ why may not the summary thereof expressed in these words and in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God be distinguished in like manner from the following explicatory words begotten of the Father before all worlds God of God light of light c. as if the one but not the other were thereby intended as necessary to be believed Moreover if the sense of this Creed in the said Assertions be not to exclude from salvation all such as do not so distinctly know nor so explicitely believe concerning the doctrine of the Trinity as its sets forth in the explication thereof yet certainly it can be taken for no less than the excluding of such as apprehend and believe in any point contrary thereto which is the case of the Greek Church in denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son Admit the said Assertions are to be restrained to those that believe not as is expressed only in the summary of the doctrine I then make this query Whether none of those who being of very low capacities do not distinctly apprehend and explicitely believe one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity so as in their apprehensions neither to confound the persons nor divide the substance can truly and savingly fear God and believe in Christ Here let it be no offence to make the following Queries 1. Whether it be certain by the word of God that all those of the Christian profession whose apprehensions of the Trinity were not fully conformable to the Faith of the Homousians as the Orthodox were called in those times did perish everlastingly 2. Whether it be certain by the Word of God that all those who so apprehended of the union of the natures in Christ as was exprest either by the Nestorians or Eutychians did perish everlastingly Furthermore I enquire Whether it be certain by the Word of God That all Pagans who have lived since the times of Christianity and to whom the Gospel was never published are damned In the aforesaid Assertions the form of words being unlimited and universal seems to import so much Now the case of such who live in meer negative infidelity being without the revelation of the Gospel is different from theirs who by wilful perverseness overthrow the Faith against the evidence of that Divine testimony in the Holy Scripture which they profess to believe Without doubt none of the whole stock of Mankind can be saved but through the Redeemer Jesus Christ But it is not so certain that all are damned who live and dye without the knowledg of Redemption by him I certainly know That without holiness no man shall see the Lord and that no man can be holy without the sanctifying operation of the Holy Spirit But that none of them are sanctified who are without the knowledg of Christ and his Gospel is not so evidently and certainly known to me either from Scripture or Reason The sum of the matter is That I am afraid in the solemn rehearsal of a Creed in the midst of Divine Service to adjudg those to eternal damnation that are not so adjudged by the word of God yet I heartily and entirely assent to the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of Christ according to the explication thereof as set forth in this Creed and I would not give my suffrage that any should be allowed in the publick Ministry who holds in any point contrary to the said doctrine Of the LITANY THE manner of the composure of the Litany and more especially that the formally petitioning words are in great part uttered by the people only I judg not so inconvenient but that I may comply therewith yet I had much rather and do heartily wish that it were otherwise framed Now I enquire Whether being thus minded I may justly declare my unfeigned consent to the use thereof Of the COLLECTS c. IN the Collect for Christmas-day these words And as at this time to be born are to be considered That our Saviour was born on or about the 25th of December is a matter of great uncertainty and little probability and contrary to the most rational Chronology It is therefore questioned whether the said words may be statedly used in a solemn prayer of the Church Tho this be a small matter yet the question is VVhether one may declare an assent and consent to the use of it while he doth not believe it to be true Of the Order for the Ministration of the Holy Communion IT is liable to exception That a great part of the Communion Service as it is called which makes a great part of the Morning-prayer for the Lords day is appointed to be read at the Communion-Table when there is no administration of the Sacrament If the declared consent hereunto import no more than that it may be complyed with in submission to authority I shall not refuse it In the Fourth Commandment it is appointed to be read The Lord blessed the Seventh day instead of the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day It may well be questioned whether one may consent to the changing of God own Words in this Commandment into other words of mans chusing But if the declared consent respect not the changing of one word for another but only the simple using of that word which stands in the Liturgy I shall not utterly refuse it seeing it hath nothing that is false or evil nor any so considerable inconvenience that I discern as to necessitate to a non-compliance Yet I dislike the retaining of it In the Exhortation preparatory to the Sacrament it is declared That it is requisite that no man should come to the Holy Communion but with a full trust in Gods Mercy and quiet conscience Here it is said not only that it is a duty to be so qualified in coming but that it is requisite that no man should come but so qualified This seems to mean that the said qualification is so necessary that none may lawfully come without it It is hereupon to be considered whether a godly Christian under doubts and fears touching his own estate towards God and apprehensive of Gods displeasure towards him may not have that Grace which may enable him to come acceptably to this Sacrament Tho I do not scruple the lawfulness of kneeling in the act of receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine yet it is hard to consent to a Rule that debars from the Lords Supper all Christians who through unfeigned scruple of conscience refuse this gesture especially considering